I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the order in which they submitted their questions to the Ceann Comhairle's office.
Private Notice Questions
Issue of Writs
Ciaran Lynch
Question:Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he plans to take arising from the judgment of the High Court today in the case taken in relation to the outstanding Donegal South-West by-election.
Phil Hogan
Question:Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in his capacity of overseeing electoral law, the implications for the Government following the judgment of the High Court that there has been an unreasonable delay in the holding of by-elections; his plans regarding the timing of the by-elections; the legal consequences for a continued delay in holding of the by-elections; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will confirm that the Government will abide by the judgment of the High Court and accept the motion tabled by the Sinn Féin Deputies that the Ceann Comhairle direct the Clerk of the Dáil to issue his writ for the election of a Member to fill the vacancy which has occurred in the membership of the present Dáil, consequent on the election to the European Parliament of Pat “The Cope” Gallagher a Member for the constituency of Donegal South-West; when the Government will provide for the holding of the by-elections in Donegal South-West, Dublin South, Waterford and Donegal North-East; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Where is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?
The Minister of State, Deputy Curran, is opposite but where is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? He was going in two different directions on this issue several hours ago.
While this discussion is premature as the Government has not had an opportunity to consider this morning's judgment in the High Court on a case taken by Senator Pearse Doherty, I am happy to inform the House of the position that arises for discussion by the Government later today.
On 29 September 2010, I informed Dáil Éireann it was the Government's intention to move the writ for the by-election to fill the vacancy for membership of Dáil Éireann in the Donegal South-West constituency and the writs for two other by-elections in the first quarter of 2011. On that occasion, I referred to the severe economic and fiscal challenges facing the State. I conveyed that, until Christmas, the Government would be working to ensure a budget that will be as fair as possible to the State's citizens and helps to further its economic recovery. I also emphasised the importance of preserving and creating jobs as a policy issue and the work undertaken by the Government to both frame a budget and fix the State's banking system. The Government is engaged in an intensive phase of budgetary discussions as it prepares its four-year plan and works towards budget 2011 in December.
We are living through an economic crisis with few parallels in our history. Many individuals, families and businesses have been badly affected. The economy is now emerging from recession with growth returning and the prospect of much stronger growth next year. The budgetary figures for this year are broadly on target.
However, despite this progress, our borrowing costs have increased significantly on international markets which is not sustainable. The work we are all involved in is of the utmost seriousness. It is essential to Ireland's future prospects that we overcome the challenge we face to our economic independence from the burden of debt on the public finances. To do this, we need to win the confidence of financial markets and our European partners by producing a credible plan which provides us with a sustainable way forward.
At this crucial time, we need to be able to demonstrate that we are able to manage our own affairs. A credible four-year plan will show Ireland has the capacity and the will to get its fiscal house in order. By setting out now the approach to how we will reduce our deficit, we can restore confidence in Ireland and return sustainability to the public finances. This is essential to underpin future economic growth and job creation for our people. We have no choice but to take quick and decisive action to regain confidence on international markets. This has been the focus of all the Government's attention.
The Government notes today's ruling by the High Court. It argued in court that Article 16.7 of the Constitution imposed no time limit for the holding of by-elections but left the matter to the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas itself had not imposed any time limit in the legislation. The court took the view there should be implied into the legislation a requirement that by-elections be held within a reasonable time. The Attorney General is considering the implications of the judgment for the Government.
The Government has been holding regular meetings to prepare for the four-year plan. At the end of last night's meeting another meeting was scheduled for 5 p.m. today. This meeting will be the first opportunity for the Government to be briefed by the Attorney General and to consider the judgment which deals with constitutional issues of considerable importance with ramifications beyond the scope of this individual case. The Government will now consider those implications and it will make a decision on what is the appropriate action to take.
Section 39(2) of the Electoral Act 1992 provides for the issue of a writ by the Clerk of the Dáil to the returning officer on the direction of the Dáil. It does not provide for any time limit but the court in this judgment has held that a requirement to move the writ in a reasonable time must be read into the section. Once the writ has been issued the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government makes an order in accordance with section 96 of the Electoral Act 1992. This order is made as soon as possible after the issue of the writ, in practice the same day. The order sets out the appointed polling day which must be not earlier than 18 days nor later than 25 days following the issue of writ, disregarding Sundays, public holidays and Good Fridays. The order also sets out the hours of polling, which must be at least 12 hours, between 7 a.m. and 10.30 p.m.
I thank the Minister of State for his response but I wish to bring a couple of matters to his attention. In his ruling calling for this by-election, Mr. Justice Kearns said that it was an unprecedented situation that a vacancy should be set for so long. He also mentioned the absence of legislation governing the specifics of this area. The reason for the delay is two-fold: first, the Government has been using taxpayers' money to offset these by-elections; and, second, despite calls from this side of the House for the legislation to be amended, this has not happened. We have heard some trite excuses when these motions were put forward. One Minister referred to economic difficulties, while another said: "If we give the public a general election, we might not get the result that we would like". It is nonsense stemming from one situation to another.
I notice that the Minister of State's partners in government are not present in the Chamber.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will not be able to sign the writ if he does not come in.
At a lunchtime conference today, however, the Greens said that the by-elections should occur as soon as possible. What does "as soon as possible" actually mean? The Minister of State has indicated that they will take place in the spring.
This is Question Time, Deputy.
I will conclude with a question now.
The Deputy should be seeking information, not imparting it.
When will the by-elections take place? With regard to today's ruling, when will that specific by-election take place? The Minister of State has indicated that the Attorney-General will examine the ruling, so will the Government seek to appeal today's court decision? Does the Government intend to bring forward legislation to ensure that, in normal circumstances, when a vacancy is created in this House it is filled within a sufficient period?
As I said at the outset, in some regards this debate is premature. The Government will meet at 5 p.m. this evening and that will be the first opportunity it has had to discuss the matter. On a previous occasion, I indicated to this House that it was the Government's intention to move the writs for the three by-elections that existed at that time, in the first quarter of next year. Given today's ruling, however, the Attorney-General's advice to the Cabinet meeting this evening will be sought when we discuss the issue. The Deputy is asking me to speculate on decisions the Government may make later on.
I am asking specific questions.
The Deputy's specific questions concern matters that will arise when the Government has had the opportunity to discuss this issue. The first such opportunity is at 5 p.m. this evening.
It is a bit farcical that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not here to answer these questions. With all due respect to the Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is in charge of electoral matters. It is farcical to be in the House answering questions about what might or might not happen at a meeting in one hour's time. Surely the Minister of State has some indication or brief from the Government about what the Attorney-General's view is arising from Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns's ruling. He is the second most senior law officer in the State.
Will this particular judgment be appealed to the Supreme Court? If not, will the by-election writ for Donegal South-West be moved tomorrow?
In an effort to be as helpful as possible, I said the debate was premature. The ruling on this matter was made early this morning. The Taoiseach was in the House until about lunchtime. I do not think it is unreasonable that the Government should be afforded a number of hours to discuss the matter before answering detailed questions. It is not that the Government has not dealt with it, or is not dealing with it practically in real time; it is that this debate is happening so quickly. The Deputy is seeking Government decisions concerning a ruling that was made a few hours ago. The Government has not had an opportunity to hold that meeting yet.
Will the Minister of State or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government attend the House tonight to inform us of the outcome of the Government meeting?
I cannot pre-empt that at the moment. There may be no decisions at this point in time.
The Minister of State is accountable to this House.
I am not disputing that.
First he said there was a meeting and then that the meeting may not make a decision anyway.
Deputy Shatter will have an opportunity to ask questions later.
I clearly indicated to the House that the questions being asked concern what the Government's actions will be in this matter. The point I specifically want to make is that as part of its work on the preparation for the four-year plan and the budget, the Government had arranged a Cabinet meeting for 5 o'clock this evening. I have spoken to the Attorney General about this item and he will brief the Cabinet at that stage, but that will be the first opportunity the Government will have had to discuss this particular ruling. I understand Opposition Members intend moving writs on this matter and I have no doubt that there will be further questions in the morning. From the Government's point of view, however, the ruling was only made this morning and the first meeting of the Government is at 5 o'clock this evening.
The Chief Whip is absolutely right. The motion to move the writ will indeed come before the House tomorrow morning.
The Government does not know which way to turn following this morning's judgment. Does the Minister of State expect that the Government will fully accept the court's judgment? The judgment is that there is an ongoing failure on the part of the Government to call a by-election, and that it is in contravention of both the terms and spirit of the Constitution and its framework for democratic representation. What is the Minister of State's own response and expectation of this 5 o'clock meeting this evening? Has he noted Senator Dan Boyle's contributions on RTE at lunchtime when he indicated that the Donegal South-West by-election should proceed without any delay? Does the Minister of State expect that will be the position taken by Fianna Fáil? Is it reflective of the Green Party as a whole? I do not accept for a moment that, an hour before this meeting, the Minister of State has not taken the opportunity to have soundings with his party colleagues and his coalition partners about all that was issued by 10.30 a.m. this morning. There has been ample time since then for the Government to have a position on these private notice questions and to answer them authoritatively. Clearly, however, the Minister of State is not in a position to do so. Will he indicate if the Government will, in the spirit of Mr. Justice Kearns's decision in the High Court, accept the writ here?
I presume the Minister of State is mindful of several of the comments of Mr. Justice Kearns this morning. He made reference to section 39(2) of the Electoral Act 1992. In the time he has taken to peruse the 53-page judgment, has the Minister of State noted that the judge stated the following?:
I conclude therefore that by well-settled principles of constitutional and statutory construction, section 39(2) of the Electoral Act 1992 is to be construed as incorporating a requirement that the discretion reserved thereunder be exercised within a reasonable time.
Has the Minister of State noted that in his conclusions, Mr. Justice Kearns stated that the court will simply make the declaration sought by the applicant to the effect that there has been unreasonable delay in moving the writ for the by-election in Donegal South-West?
I will not quote the judgment in its entirety, but has the Minister of State noted that Mr. Justice Kearns also stated as follows?:
I do not propose to make a declaration that the Government is obliged to set down and support the motion for the issue of a writ, or at least not impede or oppose such a motion. I would hope, however, that any clarification provided by this judgment would have that effect.
At this point, several hours after that judgment was issued, is the Minister of State in a position to tell the House that the Government will accept the writ when I take the opportunity to move it here tomorrow morning?
I trust we will indeed proceed to a by-election in Donegal South-West during the period between 22nd and 29th of this month and that the Government will consider holding the four by-elections now pending, including in Dublin South, Waterford and Donegal North-East.
To reiterate, the Deputy is asking whether I am in a position to commit. Quite simply, no, I am not. I cannot commit to a Government decision in advance of a Government meeting which will, as I have clearly indicated, take place this evening at 5 p.m. I note the comments of the judge in the case but it is not possible to give the commitment for which the Deputy is asking in advance. The Deputy referred to our having ample time and having taken informal soundings. However, the Government is not run on informal soundings. A Government decision and discussion regarding today's judgment is necessary and these will take place this evening. In advance of that, the type of specific detail and commitments which the Deputy seeks cannot be given.
I wish to put a brief supplementary.
We are falling into repetition at this point.
It is a brief point. The Minister of State indicated at the outset in his contribution that the 5 p.m. meeting this evening was not set following on from the decision of the High Court this morning but that it had been preset and he has re-confirmed this. Does he not believe, given the seriousness and importance of the judgment issued this morning by Mr. Justice Kearns in the High Court, that the Government should have brought forward the meeting to address the matter seriously and expeditiously?
If the Deputy wishes to argue over a couple of hours, that is fine.
It has been more than 18 months.
To be fair, the Taoiseach was in the House from 10:30 a.m. until after 1 p.m. today. Other Ministers had commitments and a time of 5 p.m. had been arranged at last night's meeting. Had we tried to bring it forward by several hours, for whatever reason, any attempt to have a full attendance would have experienced difficulties. Other Ministers had other commitments and arrangements. It is not easy to try to organise a full meeting at short notice. A meeting at 5 p.m. was organised at the conclusion of last night's Cabinet meeting. Is the Deputy suggesting we should have brought it back by one or two hours? That was simply not a feasible option.
I call Deputies Ciarán Lynch, Jim O'Keeffe and Alan Shatter in that order. Will Deputies avoid repetition because we are heavily into the matter at this stage?
The Ceann Comhairle is using up my speaking time, if he does not mind.
My apologies.
I understand that the Government is crisis-driven by the decision in the court this morning, but what is new? It has been crisis-driven since 2007. However, it was not unknown to the Government that priority questions were submitted to the Ceann Comhairle's office this morning. It was known that a debate would take place here this afternoon and there is an expectation that the line Minister should be in the House as well. The Government was aware yesterday that a ruling would be made on this matter this morning. It is no excuse to say that the Government did not know the position at lunchtime today because it was waiting on the ruling. There should have been a prepared position, and I believe there was, one way or another. Since the vacancies were created we have witnessed a contempt for the public. Now the Government may be in contempt of court. The Minister of State should note that it is not simply a matter of Donegal and the case dealt with by Mr. Justice Kearns, which is being debated here this afternoon. There are three further vacancies and a fourth vacancy created by the resignation of the former Deputy, Jim McDaid, yesterday. Will the Government bring forward all four by-elections into one day? Will the filling of the vacancy created by Mr. McDaid also be held on the same day?
Those are specifically matters for discussion by the Government this evening. I refer back to the point that the Government was aware there would be a ruling this morning. Indeed, the Government was aware there would be a ruling this morning. However, there was only a small number of hours between the time of the ruling, at 10.30 a.m., and the first opportunity for the Government and the Attorney General to meet for a briefing. I do not believe that a Government meeting at 5 p.m. is in contempt of court in any regard. The Government is dealing with this in a timely fashion, several hours after a court hearing on the case.
Would the Minister of State agree that it is difficult to take seriously his suggestion that raising this issue at this time in the Dáil is premature, when the seat has been vacant for 17 months, these court proceedings commenced five months ago, it has been known for some days that the judgment would be delivered this morning——
The Deputy is simply imparting information.
Will you let me conclude, Sir? There could have been only one of two results. Does the Minister of State agree that either the result would have been a declaration that the delay in holding the by-election was unreasonable or that it was not unreasonable? That was the only issue before the court. At any stage in the past two months did the Government sit down and consider what it would do if the court determined the delay was unreasonable, in the knowledge that this was the only issue the court had to consider?
Could the Minister of State explain to us what is in the gene pool of the Green Party that enabled its parliamentary party Members to digest this judgment within a sufficient time to do their traditional dance on the plinth of Leinster House and to shoot off in two opposite directions simultaneously? As the Minister of State is aware, the Green Party has concluded two things. First, that there should be a by-election straight away. Second, that there should be an appeal. These conclusions are contradictory but that does not seem to bother the Green Party. Will the Minister of State explain if it is because the Green Party has reached two entirely contradictory conclusions as a consequence of this judgment that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is staying outside the House for fear of making a greater fool of himself by having to respond to questions? Will the Minister of State not agree on the seriousness of the judgment delivered which essentially states, in the words of the judge, that a citizen's rights for representation, which are clearly delineated in the Constitution, amounts to a constitutional contract and that there has been an unprecedented failure to abide by that contract? In the context of such a pronouncement the line Minister should be in the House. Is it because the Green Party believes there should be a by-election and Fianna Fáil believes there should not be a by-election that the Green Party is outside the House?
Can we have a question, please?
Will the Minister of State not agree that the extent to which the Government has not merely destroyed the economy but is now undermining the constitutional fabric of the country indicates that it has completely lost its moral compass, it should leave this House and that the Taoiseach should go to the park? Does he not agree that instead of having a by-election what this country needs and demands is a general election and that an end should be brought to the sort of farce we have seen in this House today? Would the Minister of State not agree that any decent Government would, on receipt of this judgment, immediately have sought the advice of the Attorney General and made decisions?
The Deputy has made several comments but we require questions.
The tail of the Government is prancing on the grounds of Leinster House making a pretence of a concern for democracy and seeking to appeal against a decision of the courts, which seeks to uphold democracy.
Owing to the——
Perhaps we will take Deputy Jim O'Keeffe now.
I am happy to allow the Minister of State to proceed.
I will take a group of questions.
No. I am quite happy to allow the Minister of State to proceed.
I do not agree with Deputy Shatter. He referred to the seriousness of the judgment. My view is that the Government takes the judgment very seriously. This is why a Government meeting will discuss the matter this evening on the advice of the Attorney General. Some two weeks or so unfolded from the time the hearing concluded to the judgment. The judge took several weeks to make the judgment, which is detailed and it is important that the Attorney General advises the Government specifically.
There was only one of two possible outcomes.
The Minister of State without interruption, please.
There were two possible outcomes but there was a good deal of detail in the judgment. To have the judgment delivered at 10.30 a.m. this morning and for the Government to review it at 5 p.m. this evening seems absolutely appropriate.
What about Senator Boyle? Are we to lance the boil and try the park or are we going to go with the Boyle that is here?
I call Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. Deputy Shatter, your party colleague is on his feet, please.
Does the Minister of State accept that the court judgment is as plain as a pike staff? There are no two ways about it. The court clearly finds the Government in the wrong in delaying the by-election. Does the Minister of State now accept that the issue is whether the Government is prepared to ignore its constitutional obligations, as clearly delineated by the judge? The judge states, "It seems to me that a citizen's constitutional rights are trenched upon and significantly diluted when no effect is given to rights for representation clearly delineated in the Constitution."
Apart from our Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights is now incorporated in our legislation and the judge found that the way the Government was dealing with the matter was in breach of the convention requirements, which he interpreted as requiring the by-election to be held within a reasonable time of the vacancy arising. Does the Minister of State accept that an all-party committee of this House, including members of Fianna Fáil, unanimously agreed that by-elections should be held within six months of the vacancy arising? Can we get away from the hyperbole to which the judge referred and get down to basic facts? Will the Government fly in the face of the Constitution and continue to require the people of this country to have less representation than they are entitled to under the Constitution? Such an approach is damaging the democratic principle. There is a clear constitutional requirement on the Government to proceed with the by-elections, particularly those concerning vacancies of more than six months.
Deputy O'Keeffe asked if I accept the judgment of the court. I absolutely accept the judgment of the court.
Good. The Minister of State should give us a date.
The question tabled was on the Government's response. This debate is in advance of the Government's meeting to make the decisions about which Deputies are asking.
The Minister of State should tell us his view on this.
I will not go down the road of my personal view because——
Deputy Curran should tell us his view as a Minister of State.
——as I stand here in advance of these discussions, Members have expressed personal views but I have been asked to provide a Government response. The Government has not yet met to issue its response. That will happen later.
Will the Minister of State act on the recommendation of the all-party Joint Committee on the Constitution to introduce a constitutional amendment or legislation — the former being more appropriate because legislation can be changed without reference to the people — to provide for a by-election to be held within 90 days of the occurrence of a vacancy? Will the Government act on the recommendation that had all-party imprimatur? On the back of today's judgment, it is not only a matter of acceding to the moving of the writ tomorrow morning and holding the four by-elections but to address the faultline that gives rise to the abuse that the Government has employed since June 2009.
A number of questions have been put to the Minister of State regarding the failure of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to respond to these private notice questions even though they are addressed to him. Was the Minister asked to respond to questions this afternoon? Was he invited to take questions this afternoon or did he decline to take questions——
This is broadening the debate.
This is a reasonable question and an important one.
It is very reasonable.
He is the line Minister.
Did he decline to take questions or whose decision was it that the Chief Whip and Minister of State would take these questions in the Chamber?
After this response we will group the final four questions from Deputies Kathleen Lynch, Fergus O'Dowd, Dinny McGinley and James Reilly before a response from the Minister of State and we will then move on.
Regarding the legislation on the timing of by-elections, these issues are part of a broader electoral reform discussion and there are plans made in that regard. Regarding my attendance, while I acknowledge that these private notice questions are addressed to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I have dealt with this issue before in the Chamber and in that context I was asked to do this.
Did the Minister of State take that decision unilaterally, without reference to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? With respect, that is not credible. It is not credible that private notice questions tabled to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would not be referred to him in the first instance and that he would then indicate his availability and willingness to take the questions. Clearly he did not indicate this.
I am unsure of the Minister's availability.
He should not be out on his bike, he should be in here.
He is scriptwriting tweets.
On the basis that the judgment holds the Government guilty of a dereliction of duty in terms of the time by which by-elections should be held, when the Cabinet meets tonight and makes a decision will it issue a statement to tell us the decision? In terms of the Constitution and ministerial responsibility, is the decision to hold a by-election solely the prerogative of the line Minister? Taking into account what was said by Senator Boyle today, can we assume the decision to hold a by-election will be made this evening and that it will be held shortly?
Does the Minister of State agree that this is not a convoluted, difficult decision but a clear one? The by-election must be held. Does the Minister of State agree that the Government can run but cannot hide from the people? The court said that the people must have their day. Is there any reason why the Cabinet does not sit down, whether in Farmleigh, in cupboards or out of them, stop hiding from people, take out the calendar and select the date? Is it not time to have a general election? The Minister of State spoke about responsibility, the decisions about the budget and the four-year plan. Do we not need a new Government to draw up the four-year plan? We can have a general election or a by-election before Christmas. Is that not the most reasonable thing to do under the circumstances?
I speak as one of the two surviving Deputies in Donegal South-West for the past year and a half. In the judgment today, the judge conveyed that the 70,000 people of Donegal South-West are under-represented in this assembly. We need all the representation we are entitled to in Donegal South-West, when one sees economic difficulties in the county and particularly in that constituency. Does the Minister of State agree that on three occasions in the past year and a half, attempts have been made to move the writ and were voted down by a political majority on the Government side of the House? With the judgment agreeing with those on this side of the House, does the Minister of State not accept it is high time people were given the opportunity to elect a third representative so that the constituency is on a par with every other three-seat constituency in this country? It is now 4.30 p.m. and the Cabinet is meeting at 5 p.m. Between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., the Government can come to a decision with the assistance of the Attorney General and tell us before Private Members' time whether we will have the by-election.
Does the Minister of State agree that our bonds are trading at 7.2% whereas England can borrow at 3%? Every day the Government stays in power is costing the State money. I say to the Government Chief Whip who is a democrat, the Government now holds a synthetic majority in this House which has been abused to keep it in power. It is depriving the people of their rights and democracy. The Government should stop wasting money. We should have no more court cases. At least the Chief Whip should tell us there will be no more court cases on the unheld elections. The best thing to do, as my colleagues have said, is to go to the country and have a general election. We should give the people their say and the markets the certainty they want.
Will the issue of the inordinate delay in the holding of the Donegal by-election that was adjudicated on today be discussed at this evening's Cabinet meeting? The other constituencies where there are vacancies must give rise to that type of scenario as well. The Cabinet should make a decision to hold the other two by-elections at the same time. Ideally, the three should be held. It is almost a year since the Deputy for the Dublin South constituency resigned his seat.
It is nine months.
It is close to a year.
Delivery time.
We are doing extra time in Dublin South.
That is the case also in the Waterford constituency. The same judgment would surely be made if a court case was taken on the other constituencies concerned The Government might as well make a decision on the three by-elections today. That is the right thing to do. At this stage the four by-elections should be held.
The Government decision is to hang on by its finger nails.
Members are seeking a commitment from Government but I am not in a position to make that commitment in advance of the meeting.
This is a case where the Government knows the figures.
The judge's ruling and the advice of the Attorney General will be discussed at this evening's Cabinet meeting. The Government will discuss it at that stage. I do not agree with Deputies O'Dowd and Reilly on the bond spreads and the current rate of 7.2%. We are not in the market. I believe strongly that irrespective of party politics what the bond markets need to see is a credible plan as soon as possible.
They want to see a credible Government.
Correct. The Government needs to be in a position to implement a plan. The markets do not want a Government that will be gone in the next few months.
Early in the new year the Government will need to re-enter the bond market. That is what the Government is trying to achieve.
Will we know the outcome by 7 p.m. this evening?
That concludes questions.
That is a reasonable request.
The Deputy has had a very good innings. I indicated earlier that we were finishing.
Will we know the Government's position by 7 p.m. tonight?
We are moving on.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.